Delhi High Court Rejects Speculative Claims In PIL Over Electoral Bond Donations

The Delhi High Court, during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a court-monitored investigation into donations made through electoral bonds, dismissed the allegations as speculative and unsupported by solid evidence.

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who were presiding over the case, expressed concern that the claims lacked a substantial factual basis.

Allegations Based On Unreliable Sources

The bench clarified that the allegations against electoral bond transactions stemmed from two primary sources: information uploaded on the Election Commission’s website and media reports.

The court emphasized that the petition primarily relied on details provided by the State Bank of India regarding bond purchases, including the names of the buyers and the amounts.

However, the judges pointed out that linking this information to alleged transactions between the government and companies was purely speculative.

“What is the content in this petition? Only two things: one is the information from the Election Commission’s website, and the other is newspaper reports. How reliable are these sources?” questioned the bench, further asserting that there was no concrete material to substantiate the claims.

Court Questions Legitimacy Of Investigation Demand

The bench also addressed the petitioner, Sudip Narayan Tamankar, who sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the matter.

“You want the CBI to investigate, but do you have proof of any crime?” the judges remarked.

Also Read: Supreme Court Publishes Report On Allegations Against Justice Yashwant Varma

They questioned the petitioner’s understanding of the situation, asking why he requested an investigation without any evidence of wrongdoing.

“You don’t know what happened, yet you want an investigation to uncover something that can then justify filing an FIR. Is this reasonable?” the court further questioned.

CBI Lawyer Criticizes Vague Allegations

During the hearing, the CBI’s lawyer argued that the allegations in the petition were vague and lacked specificity.

The petition targeted multiple officials, including those from the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department.

The CBI lawyer emphasized that the petitioner must first demonstrate the petition’s admissibility before any further steps could be taken.

Next Hearing Scheduled For May 28

The bench concluded the hearing by scheduling the next session for May 28.

The court’s remarks made it clear that without solid evidence, the request for a CBI probe into the donations through electoral bonds would not proceed.